We’ll post the results of the survey when we think we’ve gotten all the responses we’ll get. In the mean time, here are comments from the open-ended question asking people what factors they thought were inportant in the decision over Bishop’s future: historic preservation, energy efficiency, prompt opening, compatability of the design with the neighborhood, or cost.

1. I haven’t heard much of the discourse on this but, assuming the building is or could be placed on the National Register of Historic Places (or the State equivalent), tax credit equity could be a very valuable asset that could offset the cost of producing a great, new school dramatically. I also believe it’s important for communities to protect historic buildings whenever possible – they add character.

2. Although historic preservation is very important to me, I think in this case a new building (provided it is compatible with the neighborhood)and all that it entails would be more enticing to the community in terms of bringing East Siders back to the school.

3. my answers are obviously contradictory…and historic green/energy efficient building is impossible! but, i would like to see one of those: either historic or green. that is, the only justification i can see for tearing down any old structures is to build something green. cost considerations are important, of course; could we do some fundraising in addition to the state and federal funding provided?

4. I would prefer to see something efficient and safe for the children as opposed to quick. Something on a smaller scale would be nice as well which fits in better with the neighborhood.

5. a rebuit Nathan Bishop should be a new landmark for Providence–representing Providence’s up and coming status and the best thinking about what a school building can be as a resource for the students and the community at large.

6. Although we have seen that a new building can be done “right” (e.g. appropriate architecture, nice surface finishes, beautiful auditorium and library space, structured learning environments), I have some concerns about the City’s ability and desire to build a new Nathan Bishop which would meet these (and many other) goals. At least with a renovation, we would not have to be concerned about the external architecture, and could hope that a more thoughtful design process would need to be employed to put a “21st Century” school in this early 20th century building. I was very taken with and impressed by what was done in New Haven.

7. I wonder if in the cost consideration of building a new school, the cost of demolition and disposal of huge amounts of waste (and possible effects of asbestos/lead etc. abatement) was considered? I vote for preserving the old building, at least the walls and make a nice, new structure inside. (Take the Masonic Temple downtown as example) Prompt opening of school is not as important as is the quality of the new building – don’t rush it, do it well!

8. Again, there are so many factors that impact this decision that are not available at this point. New construction could further delay the opening of the school. Where would it be located? How long to approve & acquire the site. Renovating may be faster due to these other conrens- plus, the current location and architecture work well in the neighborhood. Perhaps both solutions would work- use the exhisting structure with minor renovations while a new school at a differnt site is constructions. We need to discuss all the options before a poll make sense.

9. just wanted to respond, but I don’t really have a strong feeling either way. (not sure how bad current structure is)

10. the school is an attractive brick bldg. that fits the lot and the neighborhood very well. I would like to see the bldg. gutted and retrofitted if that is needed, rather than demolished

11. I currently have children that are middle school age and will be middle school age there are not many good schools in providence besides nathanael greene that are public for children to go to i went to bishop for middle school before it went down hill and i think it needs to be brought back

12. I think new construction would allow orientation of the building for more open space for the community and site placement is also important when building an efficent/green building. I would also like to believe that by going with the lower cost new construction would also allow more to be done sooner with other facilities in Providence.

13. Nathan Bishop should be K-8. Middle Schools are failing in Providence.

14. Given the state of the existing building, I can’t believe that it has any historic value.

15. I am concerned that the trendy theme is to tear down old buildings. For one thing new construction is not always better–I have friends working at the “new” schools and those schools are not perfect. Would anyone really propsoe tearing down old buildings at Brown, Moses Brown, or Harvard? Also what about the 7-12 concept? Are middle schools the way to go?

16. design “compatibility” is subjective. It doesn’t have to fit in exactly–for example the Guggenheim museum… 🙂 Of course the design is important but contrast is okay too.

17. I believe it is important to make the school work well with current education models and the school able to adapt with the changing school population and grades. It would be nice to make the architecture compatible with the historic neighborhood but keep in mind the cost and allow the school to open quickly.

18. The school building is an out-dated disaster and should be torn down.

19. Let the community come forward and raise money to support a future oriented school that can be a beacon for a new kind of education that considers real world global issues outside as well as in. A unity of form and content, with ideas of sustainability built into the very fabric of the school. Let’s be visionary and draw back in the local community.

20. While the idea of a newly constructed school has a certain idealistic appeal, I don’t believe it would get done in a realistic time frame. I think having a good school in a workable infrastructure sooner is more important that having an ideal school in a utopian infrastructure some day far into the future.

21. I think the facade , at least , should stay. This building is one of the nicer old schools in the city and worth saving at least the exterior. Gut the interior if need be. Could do this by removing back wall, toward tennis courts, and leaving the three other main walls standing. Look at Masonic Temple for inspiration and a company that can do this quite well. “Green” should be an INTEGRAL part of ALL the renovations and new school buildings. This is not only wise, but smart. In the long run the city will save tons of carbon emissions and money. Another aspect of ‘green’ that no one is talking about much is the fact that razing buildings and using brand new materials is a HUGE use of resources and energy, not to mention piling huge amounts in a landfill in Johnston that is nearly at max capacity. It’s important to look at the entire ‘footprint’ and life cycle analysis when discussing ‘green’ and sustainability. RE: timing, don’t rush the job and do it shoddily. Do it WELL so this building, however it is modified, will be a school children will be able to use and be proud of for generations.

22. I dont think we should stick with a building that would limit the optimal design for learning. The current structure is too imposing, impersonal and lends to the idea that the new Bishop will not be much different from the old. The idea that we might spend MORE money to save it seems a pure waste of funds.

23. I answered these questions with the “new construction” option in mind. If renovation is chosen then of course I would like to consider historic preservation more important.

24. If we are going to go ahead with a new plan for the school, then we should build a state of the art efficient setting to house the new school…. I am afraid there might be too many unforseen costs involved with renovating the old building.. I do not like the idea of tearing down an old bldg but in this case I think it’s appropriate…

25. I feel strongly that the building should be new. It will send a strong message to the community about the comeback of the schools. I think it is clear that this would be the better economic choice and it would be quicker than renovating. I feel this way even though I am a member of PPS and in general value preservation.

26. It seems to me that the city/state is going to allot only so much money for this project. A renovation is likely to encounter unexpected expenses, and i fear that the cost over-runs would come out of the amenities — quality lighting, furniture, auditorium, etc. I’d rather go for a safer bet which is new construction as long as it’s done the way it was described last night and not on the cheap. It seems like the better value for the buck and might be more compatible with educational needs.

27. The Nathan Bishop School building should incorporate tools i.e latest in technology, furniture, resource materials for students and teachers, to support best educational practices.

28. There is no sense in having a forward-looking educational program if you don’t have forward-looking (ie, green) systems–the building would become outmoded practically immediately and cost Providence more in the long run. I gathered that new construction costs less and goes faster–very important. I’m a preservationist at heart but I don’t find the building particularly appealing or representative of the kind of community-building, flexible model program you(we) hope to see at the school. I’d be interested in knowing if one facade or other feature of the old building could be preserved as a nod to the past. Overall though this project is too important to be weighed down by any increased time, money, or logistical obstacles that serious preservation might bring.

29. The aesthetics of that building are redeemable and something modern there would be awful. Gut the building and landscape the outside.

30. Rather than rush, I’d love to see the school built carefully and with funds available to make it an innovative and creative environment.

31. There are children in the neighborhood right now who will leave if they do not have good public schools.

32. The existing structure is an ugly institutional edifice. Anything new would be better. (Actually, anything that looks decent will be better.) Plus it will cost less, be open sooner and be in the long-term more energy efficient.

33. New construction is less expensive and allows a design that better matches the educational goals (a pod structure that cannot be created in a rennovated Bishop). More important, I think it is the inevitable choice of the city for the same reasons, and because the community is overwhelmingly in favor of new construction. So if the goal is to get this done, lets make this decision quickly and get going.